RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2006-02720
                                       INDEX CODE:  100.05, 131.01
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX              COUNSEL: NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  11 March 2008


__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be  considered  by  Special  Selection  Board  (SSB)  by  the
Calendar Year 2005A (CY05A) (6 Jul 05) (P0505A)  Lieutenant  Colonel  (Lt
Col) Central Selection Board (CSB) with substituted  Officer  Performance
Reports (OPRs), for the periods 10 April 2003 through 9 April 2004 and 10
April 2004 through 9 April  2005,  and  a  substituted  P0505A  Promotion
Recommendation Form (PRF).

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His OPRs closing 9 April 2004 and 9 April 2005  contained  duplicate  and
incorrect performance information which did not occur in these  reporting
periods and was captured in the previous reporting period.  His rater was
on convalescent leave from January  2005  through  March  2005  and  then
departed for retirement on 18 March 2005.  Due to his rater’s medical and
retirement situation, the rater did not spend adequate time  on  his  OPR
because comments were duplicated on his  2005  OPR  from  his  2004  OPR.
Additionally,  his  rater  and  additional  rater  stated   inappropriate
Professional Military Education (PME) on the reports and they  failed  to
use appropriate next assignment recommendations.  His  evaluators  failed
to realize he was not eligible for Intermediate Service School  (ISS)  in
residence because he completed Air Command and Staff  College  (ACSC)  by
correspondence  which  caused  his  2005  OPR  to  be  inaccurate.    His
additional rater drafted a poorly written PRF for  his  senior  rater  to
sign which was missing critical information despite  receiving  excellent
feedback.

In  support  of  his  application,  the  applicant  provides  a  personal
statement; supporting statements from his  rater,  additional  rater  and
senior rater;  copies  of  the  contested  OPRs  and  PRF;  the  proposed
substitute  OPRs  and  PRF;  Management  Level  Review  (MLR)   President
endorsement of PRF changes; ERAB denial; and a sample of a similar case.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

__________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to  the  military  personnel  data  system,  the  applicant  is
currently serving on active duty in the grade of major  with  a  date  of
rank of 1 April 2001.  He has a Total  Active  Federal  Military  Service
Date and Total Active Federal Commissioned  Service  (TAFCS)  Date  of  6
February 1990.  The following is a resume of the applicant’s  performance
ratings:

      PERIOD ENDING                     OVERALL EVALUATION

      20 Dec 96 (Capt)                        MS
       5 Feb 98                                    MS
       5 Feb 99                                    MS
       9 Apr 00                                    MS
       9 Apr 01                                    MS
       9 Apr 02 (Major)                            MS
       9 Apr 03                                    MS
       9 Apr 04                                    MS (contested OPR)
       9 Apr 05                                    MS (contested OPR)
      13 Dec 05                                    MS

The applicant has two nonselections to the grade of Lt Col by  the  CY05A
(6 Jul 05) (P0505A) and CY06A (13 Mar 06) (P0506A) Lt Col CSBs.

The applicant filed an appeal to the ERAB under the provisions of AFI 36-
2401, Correcting Officer  and  Enlisted  Evaluation  Reports.   The  ERAB
denied the applicant’s request on 24 April 2006.

__________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denying the applicant’s request to substitute  his
9 April 2004 and 9 April  2005  OPRs  and  P0505A  PRF.   Based  on  this
recommendation, ARPC/ DPPPO, finds no basis to grant his request for  SSB
consideration.  To begin with, DPPPEP  notes  the  applicant’s  2005  OPR
closed out on 9 April 2005  after  his  rater  departed  for  retirement.
According to policy, the applicant’s report should have been  closed  out
30 days prior to his rater’s departure as a Change of Reporting  Official
(CRO) report.  In response to the applicant’s contentions  regarding  his
2004 and 2005 OPRs, DPPPEP states in situations when a person is  in  the
same job  and  accomplishing  the  same  duties,  some  comments  may  be
duplicated on a performance report because the person did the same  thing
for the next year.  DPPPEP agrees that the 9 April  2005  OPR  should  be
changed based on rater’s support; however, only line 7 in section VI  and
lines 3 and 4 in section VII should be changed because they are the  only
lines duplicated from the 9 April 2004 report.  The applicant provides  a
proposed 2005 OPR which changes the  PME  recommendation  and  assignment
recommendation in addition to the  three  duplicated  lines.   The  rater
states  the  2005  OPR  contains  an  inappropriate  PME  recommendation;
however, the  2005  OPR  does  not  contain  a  PME  recommendation.   In
addition, the rater  recommends  a  PME  recommendation  of  Intermediate
Developmental Education (IDE) (previously known as ISS) on  the  proposed
2004 OPR; however, the applicant was no longer eligible for  IDE  because
he was outside  of  the  eligibility  window.   PME  recommendations  are
authorized but not mandatory.  Simply changing  the  applicant’s  OPR  to
read a PME recommendation for convenience is  prohibited  because  it  is
correcting an alleged wrong due to nonselection for promotion.  The rater
also states the 2004  and  2005  OPRs  contain  inappropriate  assignment
recommendations; however, the recommendation for the  job  of  Operations
Officer is an appropriate recommendation because it is a  valid  position
for a lieutenant colonel.

In response to the applicant’s  contentions  regarding  his  PRF,  DPPPEP
states the applicant received his PRF 30 days prior to the CSB.  At  that
time, the applicant is required to discuss  any  disagreements  with  his
senior rater.  Every officer receives the Instruction Sheet for Review of
Pre-selection Brief from MPFM 05-02 approximately 120 days prior  to  the
CSB convening, which  specifically  provides  the  applicant  information
pertaining  to  his  options  with  his  PRF.   In  addition   to   these
instructions, the AF Form 709 has instructions on the bottom of the  form
for the officer which state, “Review record of performance, Officer  Pre-
Selection Brief, and PRF for accuracy.   Prior  to  the  board  convening
date, you must contact your senior rater to discuss if your  PRF  is  not
accurate, omits pertinent information, or has an error.”   The  applicant
failed to take the necessary actions to correct  the  PRF  prior  to  the
board convening.   The  applicant  provides  a  substitute  PRF  which  a
complete rewrite of the original PRF.  The senior rater and MLR President
failed to provide sufficient justification as to why the proposed PRF had
to be harder hitting than the original PRF.  A material error in the  PRF
itself; substantive changes to the record of performance used  to  assess
the applicant’s performance-based potential; or a material error  in  the
PRF preparation process, may justify changes to a PRF.   The  applicant’s
requested changes to his 2004 and 2005 OPRs do  not  warrant  a  complete
rewrite of the PRF.

It is DPPPEP’s opinion that the  applicant’s  appeal  appears  to  be  an
attempt to retroactively enhance his promotion potential, not correct  an
error or injustice.

As a side note of interest, DPPPEP found an error on  the  applicant’s  9
April 2001 OPR.  The applicant’s date of rank is  1 April  2001  and  the
report that closed out on 9  April  2001  reflects  the  applicant  as  a
captain and is reflected on an AF Form  707B  instead  of  707A.   DPPPEP
recommends the applicant contact his evaluators and request the report be
reaccomplished on the correct form and with the correct rank.

The DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit C and  the  DPPPO  evaluation  is  at
Exhibit D.

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant agrees with DPPPEP in that his 2005 OPR should have been  a
CRO report.  If the Board concurs with their recommendation, he will take
corrective actions to fix this error.  He also agrees  with  DPPPEP  that
the proposed  PME  recommendation  on  his  2004  OPR  should  be  Senior
Developmental Education (SDE) versus IDE; and,  that  his  1  April  2001
needs to be corrected to be on AF Form  707A  and  his  grade  should  be
corrected to the grade of major.

The applicant states the first opportunity he had to review his OPRs  for
corrections was inside of two weeks before the CSB.  Due to  his  rater’s
retirement and his additional rater’s permanent change of station  (PCS),
neither supervisor was available to discuss the  OPR  discrepancies.   He
was forced to wait until after his impending PCS  before  contacting  his
past supervisors and implement paperwork to change his last OPR.  He  was
provided his PRF prior to the board; however, he was  nether  trained  or
aware he had the opportunity to request a change to his PRF prior to  the
board.

His  supervisors  freely  acknowledge  several  errors   were   made   in
preparation of his OPRs.  They admit these errors were  due  to  lack  of
oversight and negligence.  They also admit the OPRs were  not  thoroughly
checked for errors or accuracy and they failed to accurately  assess  and
document his performance.  This evidence clearly proves the entire OPR is
flawed in representing an accurate performance  appraisal  and  goes  far
beyond just the three  lines  that  DPPPEP  concurs  should  be  changed.
Unfortunately, he can only change the errors in his  OPRs  vice  entirely
rewriting the poorly written OPRs due to his supervisor’s negligence.

His additional rater admitted he failed to provide an accurate draft  PRF
to the senior rater in preparation for the Lt  Col  IPZ  board.   If  the
Board approves the recommended OPR changes then it  provides  substantive
changes to the record of performance  to  assess  his  performance  based
potential.

The applicant’s rebuttal, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

__________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.   The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or
regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or injustice warranting corrective action in regard
to the applicant’s request to replace his OPRs closing 9 April 2004 and 9
April 2005; replace his P0505A PRF; and that his records meet an SSB with
the substituted  OPRs  and  PRF.   After  careful  consideration  of  the
applicant’s complete  submission,  including  the  supporting  statements
provided by the members of his rating chain, it appears that  the  errors
in the contested reports were the result of oversight and inattentiveness
by his evaluators as evidenced by  their  statements.   In  view  of  the
evaluators’ statements,  we  believe  the  contested  OPRs  and  PRF  are
inaccurate assessments of the applicant’s performance during  the  period
in question and  that  they  should  be  removed  from  his  records  and
substituted with the reaccomplished documents.  We  note  the  Air  Force
office of primary responsibility (OPR) has pointed out  in  their  review
that the  proposed  OPR  closing  9  April  2004  has  an  incorrect  PME
recommendation; therefore, we concur with their  recommendation  that  if
the report is used to replace the current OPR then  it  first  should  be
corrected to reflect a PME recommendation for SDE versus  IDE.   We  also
note and concur with DPPPEP’s recommendation  that  the  applicant’s  OPR
closing 9 April 2001 should be reaccomplished on an AF Form  707A,  Field
Grade Officer Performance Report (Maj thru Col) and reflect  the  correct
grade of major in block 3.  While we cannot  conclusively  determine  the
errors made  on  the  contested  OPRs  and  PRF  caused  the  applicant’s
nonselection for promotion to Lt Col, we  believe  any  doubt  should  be
resolved in the applicant’s favor.  Therefore, it is the Board’s  opinion
in order to provide the  applicant  fair  and  equitable  relief  and  to
preclude any possibility of an injustice, his records should be corrected
as indicated below.

__________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The pertinent military  records  of  the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that:

      a. The Field Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), AF  Form  707A,
rendered for the period 10 April 2003 through 9 April 2004,  be  declared
void and removed from his records.


      b The attached Field Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), AF Form
707A, rendered for  the  period  10  April  2003  through  9 April  2004,
reflecting in Section VII, last line “Solid gold leader and space expert;
ready  for  greater  challenges!   Must  select  for  Sq/CC  and  IDE  in
residence!” be corrected to reflect “SDE” versus  “IDE”  in  section  VI,
line 9 and section VII, line 5; and, the corrected report be filed in his
records in its proper sequence.


      c. The Field Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), AF  Form  707A,
rendered for the period 10 April 2004 through 9 April 2005,  be  declared
void and removed from his records.


      d. The attached Field Grade Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR),  AF
Form 707A, rendered for the period 10 April 2004  through  9 April  2005,
reflecting   in   Section    VI,    last    line    “Spectacular    space
professional/missile  warning  expert;  Squadron  command  and   SDE   in
residence a must!” be filed in his records in its proper sequence.


      e. The Company Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), AF Form 707B,
rendered for the period 10 April 2000 through 9 April 2001, be placed  on
an AF Form 707A, and corrected to reflect the grade in section I, block 3
as “Major” versus “Captain;” and, the corrected report be  filed  in  his
records in its proper sequence.


      f. The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), AF  Form  709,  prepared
for the Calendar Year 2005A (CY05A) Central Lieutenant Colonel  Selection
Board be declared void and removed from his records.


      g. The attached Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF),  AF  Form  709,
prepared for the Calendar Year 2005A (CY05A) Central  Lieutenant  Colonel
Selection Board reflecting in Section  IV,  last  line  “Section  officer
successfully     working     critical     space     program—gets      top
results—promote—ready for SDE/cmd” be accepted for file in its place.


It is further recommended that the applicant’s  record,  to  include  the
attached OPRs closing 9 April 2004 and 9 April 2005; and, the CY05A  PRF,
be considered for promotion to the  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel  by  a
Special  Selection  Board  for  the  CY05A  Central  Lieutenant   Colonel
Selection Board.

It is also recommended that his record be considered for promotion to the
grade of  lieutenant  colonel  by  a  Special  Selection  Board  for  any
subsequent board for which the OPRs closing 9 April 2004 and 9 April 2005
were a matter of record.

__________________________________________________________________

The following  members  of  the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 27 February 2007, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member
                 Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The  following
documentary  evidence  for  AFBCMR  Docket   Number   BC-2006-02720   was
considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 Aug 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 2 Oct 06.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 18 Oct 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Oct 06.
    Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 31 Jan 07, w/atchs.



                                   KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
                                   Panel Chair


AFBCMR BC-2006-02720




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, be corrected to show:

      a. The Field Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), AF Form 707A,
rendered for the period 10 April 2003 through 9 April 2004, be, and hereby
is, declared void and removed from his records.


      b The attached Field Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), AF Form
707A, rendered for the period 10 April 2003 through 9 April 2004,
reflecting in Section VII, last line “Solid gold leader and space expert;
ready for greater challenges!  Must select for Sq/CC and IDE in residence!”
be corrected to reflect “SDE” versus “IDE” in section VI, line 9 and
section VII, line 5; and, the corrected report be, and hereby is,  filed in
his records in its proper sequence.


      c. The Field Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), AF Form 707A,
rendered for the period 10 April 2004 through 9 April 2005, be, and hereby
is, declared void and removed from his records.


      d. The attached Field Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), AF Form
707A, rendered for the period 10 April 2004 through 9 April 2005,
reflecting in Section VI, last line “Spectacular space professional/missile
warning expert; Squadron command and SDE in residence a must!” be, and
hereby is, filed in his records in its proper sequence.


      e. The Company Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), AF Form 707B,
rendered for the period 10 April 2000 through 9 April 2001, be placed on an
AF Form 707A, and corrected to reflect the grade in section I, block 3 as
“Major” versus “Captain;” and, the corrected report be, and hereby is,
filed in his records in its proper sequence.


      f. The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), AF Form 709, prepared for
the Calendar Year 2005A (CY05A) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board
be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.


      g. The attached Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), AF Form 709,
prepared for the Calendar Year 2005A (CY05A) Central Lieutenant Colonel
Selection Board reflecting in Section IV, last line “Section officer
successfully working critical space program—gets top
results—promote—ready—for SDE/cmd” be, and hereby is, accepted for file in
its place.


      It is further directed that his record, to include the attached OPRs
closing 9 April 2004, 9 April 2005; and the CY05A PRF, be considered for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board
for the CY05A Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.

      It is also directed that his record be considered for promotion to the
grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board for any subsequent
board for which the OPRs closing 9 April 2004 and 9 April 2005 were a
matter of record.





  JOE G. LINEBERGER

  Director

  Air Force Review Boards Agency

Attachments:
1.  OPR closing 9 Apr 04
2.  OR closing 9 Apr 05
2.  P0505A PRF